Discussion of the past and present operations of the Long Island Rail Road.

Moderator: Liquidcamphor

  by Pensyfan19
 
I just thought of this today. The LIRR originally got the M3 in 1983, Metro North got the M4 in1987, as well as the M6 in 1993. Was the LIRR supposed to get an "M5" around the same time period? Was it supposed to be a variant of the M1/M3? Why was this class skipped over?
  by BuddR32
 
Supposedly there was an M5 in the planning. It night have even been a single car variant, but the idea was evidently scrapped. I suppose, once Metro North had the M6 rolling around, the next forward model Metropolitan was the M7, we cannot go back.

When I hired on, in hillside was a big wall display featuring the 'decade of change' if I remember right. One of the images was the proposed "New Electric Fleet" this image had a modernized M1/M3. Single leaf doors, larger windows and the cyclops headlights, but the same shape and end bonnet of the original Metropolitans. I had always assumed that it was the M7 prototype drawing before a builder was selected. Perhaps it was the never built M5

Search the MNR forum, there is a thread about the M5 there.

What really irks me is the proposed M9a should by history be a MNR variant as the M1a, M3a, M7a are the sister models of the LI fleets. someone screwed up and made the LI ESA cars (if they ever get them) the M9a.
Ah, the stupid * that bothers us. lol.
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
The M5 was a stillborn single unit MU (cabs both ends, single configuration) in the early 1990s to replace the
1962/1965 ACMUs.

Note the NYC ACMUs outlived even the MP75s a year younger.
  by newkirk
 
When I hired on, in hillside was a big wall display featuring the 'decade of change' if I remember right. One of the images was the proposed "New Electric Fleet" this image had a modernized M1/M3. Single leaf doors, larger windows and the cyclops headlights, but the same shape and end bonnet of the original Metropolitans. I had always assumed that it was the M7 prototype drawing before a builder was selected. Perhaps it was the never built M5
Is this the proposed image ?
Image
  by MattAmity90
 
newkirk wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:55 am
When I hired on, in hillside was a big wall display featuring the 'decade of change' if I remember right. One of the images was the proposed "New Electric Fleet" this image had a modernized M1/M3. Single leaf doors, larger windows and the cyclops headlights, but the same shape and end bonnet of the original Metropolitans. I had always assumed that it was the M7 prototype drawing before a builder was selected. Perhaps it was the never built M5
Is this the proposed image ?
Image
No, that was the original vision of the M7 in 1999 by Bombardier (Budd went out of business)). Since the new millennium was coming up, they didn't want a third-generation Metropolitan car that looked the same. The only things that are on the M7/M9 cars in this picture are the single-leaflet doors and the coupling system. If you look at the number on top 7002, that would indicate M7 since they are numbered 7001-7836. Maybe another reason why the M5 was stillborn was because despite being a single configuration, they would have run out of numbers. The M1/M3 fleet was numbered 9001-9944 (9891-9892 were re-numbered 9945-9946 after the Ferguson Incident). That would have left just 9947-9999. Also if they were single car there was a chance that when going through a wide crossing it would stall.

In short, MTA LIRR and Metro-North wanted the Metropolitan Car of the 21st Century, not a car of the 21st Century that looked like the Metropolitan Car of the Modern Era you would envision back then on the Jetsons.
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
MattAmity90 wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:04 pm Also if they were single car there was a chance that when going through a wide crossing it would
stall.
CTA operated single unit "1-50" series St. Louis PCC heavy rail cars on the Evanston and Skokie branches without gapping issues, both interurban lines with many crossings.

Single unit third rail MUs are rare, other than some NYCT cars (mostly older cars pre-60s and some R62As and
R68s), the PATCO cars (since rebuilt to pairs) were among the few since the ACMU/MP75.
  by BuddR32
 
newkirk wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:55 am
When I hired on, in hillside was a big wall display featuring the 'decade of change' if I remember right. One of the images was the proposed "New Electric Fleet" this image had a modernized M1/M3. Single leaf doors, larger windows and the cyclops headlights, but the same shape and end bonnet of the original Metropolitans. I had always assumed that it was the M7 prototype drawing before a builder was selected. Perhaps it was the never built M5
Is this the proposed image ?
Image
Yes! Thats the image I remember from the board in Hillisde. I dont remember the caption under it, although its clearly the original M7 concept.
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
Basically an updated R46 design (with blackened windows from the M6). Even the basic M-series design from 1968 wasn't dated even in 1994 with the M6.
  by Backshophoss
 
A single car didn't have the room to carry all the needed underframe stuff for a single car
  by MattAmity90
 
Let me rephrase what I said before because it came out weird:

Actually in 1999, the MTA-LIRR-Metro North wanted the M7 to be "The Metropolitan/Cosmopolitan Car of the Millennia/21st Century!" They didn't want a third-generation Metropolitan/Cosmopolitan Car with the M1/M3 default chassis blueprint right down to the aerodynamic shape. To me it looked like a M1/M3 car with some changes to the detail such as the leaflet doors, the coupling system, embedded headlights above the cab that were added to the original fleet in the 1990's, and of course all the amenities that a M7/M9 car has. The original concept looked like what a LIRR/Metro-North Car would look like in 1990 if it was 1970 with M1's rolling out already. Something you would see on the Jetsons.

M5 cars were aborted because a car usually fits 100-120 people, but with all the equipment downsized to one car on the underside and with a bathroom, it would cut the capacity in half to 50-60, plus 20 more for standing only in both vestibules.
  by BuddR32
 
Also as we found out, cost. Lol. I think the M8 S car costs nearly what a pair of M8s does, and it can’t even run on its own.
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
From what is commonly cited (and stated), the most common reason passenger MUs are favored in pairs over
single units apparently is weight.

The NYC ACMUs (1962/1965 series) were 116,000 lb, MP75 at 114,060. Operating in paired configuration knocked the M-1s down to 90,000 lb, then back up to 110,000 (M-3) and 130,000 (M-7). Excluding the lightweight Pioneers of the 1950s, 115,000 lb seems a typical minimum for single unit MUs (Arrow I, 1968) with the Metroliners (single ended single units) an all time record at 166,000 lb. The Arrow IIIs, Silverliner IVs and Vs were built as both pairs
and single units, but cannot find the weight differences at this time.